6

CHAPTER 6.

THE MERIDIAN OF TIME.


Unto Moses, with whom the Lord spake "face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his friend,"[144] the course of the human race, both as then past
and future, was made known; and the coming of the Redeemer was
recognized by him as the event of greatest import in all the happenings
to which the earth and its inhabitants would be witness. The curse of
God had aforetime fallen upon the wicked, and upon the earth because of
them, "For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his
Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian
of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world."[145]
In this scripture appears the earliest mention of the expressive and
profoundly significant designation of the period in which the Christ
should appear--the meridian of time. If the expression be regarded as
figurative, be it remembered the figure is the Lord's.

The term "meridian", as commonly used, conveys the thought of a
principal division of time or space[146] thus we speak of the hours
before the daily noon as ante-meridian (a.m.) and those after noon as
post-meridian (p.m.). So the years and the centuries of human history
are divided by the great event of the birth of Jesus Christ. The years
preceding that epoch-making occurrence are now designated as time
_Before Christ_ (B.C.); while subsequent years are each specified as a
certain _Year of our Lord_, or, as in the Latin tongue, _Anno Domini_
(A.D.). Thus the world's chronology has been adjusted and systematized
with reference to the time of the Savior's birth; and this method of
reckoning is in use among all Christian nations. It is instructive to
note that a similar system was adopted by the isolated branch of the
house of Israel that had been brought from the land of Palestine to the
western continent; for from the appearance of the promised sign among
the people betokening the birth of Him who had been so abundantly
predicted by their prophets, the Nephite reckoning of the years,
starting with the departure of Lehi and his colony from Jerusalem, was
superseded by the annals of the new era.[147]

The occasion of the Savior's advent was preappointed; and the time
thereof was specifically revealed through authorized prophets on each of
the hemispheres. The long history of the Israelitish nation had unfolded
a succession of events that found a relative culmination in the earthly
mission of the Messiah. That we may the better comprehend the true
significance of the Lord's life and ministry while in the flesh, some
consideration should be given to the political, social, and religious
condition of the people amongst whom He appeared and with whom He lived
and died. Such consideration involves at least a brief review of the
antecedent history of the Hebrew nation. The posterity of Abraham
through Isaac and Jacob had early come to be known by the title in which
they took undying pride and found inspiring promise, Israelites, or the
children of Israel.[148] Collectively they were so designated throughout
the dark days of their bondage in Egypt;[149] so during the four decades
of the exodus and the return to the land of promise,[150] and on through
the period of their prosperity as a mighty people under the
administration of the judges, and as a united monarchy during the
successive reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon.[151]

Immediately following the death of Solomon, about 975 B.C. according to
the most generally accepted chronology, the nation was disrupted by
revolt. The tribe of Judah, part of the tribe of Benjamin, and small
remnants of a few other tribes remained true to the royal succession,
and accepted Rehoboam, son of Solomon, as their king; while the rest,
usually spoken of as the Ten Tribes, broke their allegiance to the house
of David, and made Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, their king. The Ten Tribes
retained the title Kingdom of Israel though also known as Ephraim.[152]
Rehoboam and his adherents were distinctively called the Kingdom of
Judah. For about two hundred and fifty years the two kingdoms maintained
their separate autonomy; then, about 722 or 721 B.C., the independent
status of the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, and the captive people
were transported to Assyria by Shalmanezer and others. Subsequently they
disappeared so completely as to be called the Lost Tribes. The Kingdom
of Judah was recognized as a nation for about one hundred and thirty
years longer; then, about 588 B.C., it was brought into subjection by
Nebuchadnezzar, through whom the Babylonian captivity was inaugurated.
For three score years and ten Judah was kept in exile and virtual
bondage, in consequence of their transgression as had been predicted
through Jeremiah.[153] Then the Lord softened the hearts of their
captors, and their restoration was begun under the decree of Cyrus the
Persian, who had subdued the Babylonian kingdom. The Hebrew people were
permitted to return to Judea, and to enter upon the work of rebuilding
the temple at Jerusalem.[154]

A great company of the exiled Hebrews availed themselves of this
opportunity to return to the lands of their fathers, though many elected
to remain in the country of their captivity, preferring Babylon to
Israel. The "whole congregation" of the Jews who returned from the
Babylonian exile were but "forty and two thousand three hundred and
three score, beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were
seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven." The relatively small
size of the migrating nation is further shown by the register of their
beasts of burden.[155] While those who did return strove valiantly to
reestablish themselves as the house of David, and to regain some measure
of their former prestige and glory, the Jews were never again a truly
independent people. In turn they were preyed upon by Greece, Egypt, and
Syria; but about 164-163 B.C., the people threw off, in part at least,
the alien yoke, as a result of the patriotic revolt led by the
Maccabees, the most prominent of whom was Judas Maccabeus. The temple
service, which had been practically abolished through the proscription
of victorious foes, was reestablished.[156] In the year 163 B.C., the
sacred structure was rededicated, and the joyful occasion was thereafter
celebrated in annual festival as the Feast of Dedication.[157] During
the reign of the Maccabees, however, the temple fell into an almost
ruinous condition, more as a result of the inability of the reduced and
impoverished people to maintain it than through any further decline of
religious zeal. In the hope of insuring a greater measure of national
protection, the Jews entered into an unequal alliance with the Romans
and eventually became tributary to them, in which condition the Jewish
nation continued throughout the period of our Lord's ministry. In the
meridian of time Rome was virtually mistress of the world. When Christ
was born Augustus Caesar[158] was emperor of Rome, and the Idumean,
Herod,[159] surnamed the Great, was the vassal king of Judea.

Some semblance of national autonomy was maintained by the Jews under
Roman dominion, and their religious ceremonials were not seriously
interfered with. The established orders in the priesthood were
recognized, and the official acts of the national council, or
Sanhedrin,[160] were held to be binding by Roman law; though the
judicial powers of this body did not extend to the infliction of capital
punishment without the sanction of the imperial executive. It was the
established policy of Rome to allow to her tributary and vassal peoples
freedom in worship so long as the mythological deities, dear to the
Romans, were not maligned nor their altars desecrated.[161]

Needless to say, the Jews took not kindly to alien domination, though
for many generations they had been trained in that experience, their
reduced status having ranged from nominal vassalage to servile bondage.
They were already largely a dispersed people. All the Jews in Palestine
at the time of Christ's birth constituted but a small remnant of the
great Davidic nation. The Ten Tribes, distinctively the aforetime
kingdom of Israel, had then long been lost to history, and the people of
Judah had been widely scattered among the nations.

In their relations with other peoples the Jews generally endeavored to
maintain a haughty exclusiveness, which brought upon them Gentile
ridicule. Under Mosaic law Israel had been required to keep apart from
other nations; they attached supreme importance to their Abrahamic
lineage as children of the covenant, "an holy people unto the Lord,"
whom He had chosen "to be a special people unto himself, above all
people that are upon the face of the earth".[162] Judah had experienced
the woful effects of dalliance with pagan nations, and, at the time we
are now considering, a Jew who permitted himself unnecessary association
with a Gentile became an unclean being requiring ceremonial cleansing to
free him from defilement. Only in strict isolation did the leaders find
hope of insuring the perpetuity of the nation.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Jews hated all other peoples and
were reciprocally despized and contemned by all others. They manifested
especial dislike for the Samaritans, perhaps because this people
persisted in their efforts to establish some claim of racial
relationship. These Samaritans were a mixed people, and were looked upon
by the Jews as a mongrel lot, unworthy of decent respect. When the Ten
Tribes were led into captivity by the king of Assyria, foreigners were
sent to populate Samaria.[163] These intermarried with such Israelites
as had escaped the captivity; and some modification of the religion of
Israel, embodying at least the profession of Jehovah worship, survived
in Samaria. The Samaritan rituals were regarded by the Jews as
unorthodox, and the people as reprobate. At the time of Christ the
enmity between Jew and Samaritan was so intense that travelers between
Judea and Galilee would make long detours rather than pass through the
province of Samaria which lay between. The Jews would have no dealings
with the Samaritans.[164]

The proud feeling of self-sufficiency, the obsession for exclusiveness
and separation--so distinctively a Jewish trait at that time--was
inculcated at the maternal knee and emphasized in synagog and school.
The Talmud,[165] which in codified form post-dates the time of Christ's
ministry, enjoined all Jews against reading the books of alien nations,
declaring that none who so offended could consistently hope for
Jehovah's favor.[166] Josephus gives his endorsement to similar
injunction, and records that wisdom among the Jews meant only
familiarity with the law and ability to discourse thereon.[167] A
thorough acquaintanceship with the law was demanded as strongly as other
studies were discountenanced. Thus the lines between learned and
unlearned came to be rigidly drawn; and, as an inevitable consequence
those who were accounted learned, or so considered themselves, looked
down upon their unscholarly fellows as a class distinct and
inferior.[168]

Long before the birth of Christ, the Jews had ceased to be a united
people even in matters of the law, though the law was their chief
reliance as a means of maintaining national solidarity. As early as four
score years after the return from the Babylonian exile, and we know not
with accuracy how much earlier, there had come to be recognized, as men
having authority, certain scholars afterward known as scribes, and
honored as rabbis[169] or teachers. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah
these specialists in the law constituted a titled class, to whom
deference and honor were paid. Ezra is designated "the priest, the
scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and
of his statutes to Israel".[170] The scribes of those days did valuable
service under Ezra, and later under Nehemiah, in compiling the sacred
writings then extant; and in Jewish usage those appointed as guardians
and expounders of the law came to be known as members of the Great
Synagog, or Great Assembly, concerning which we have little information
through canonical channels. According to Talmudic record, the
organization consisted of one hundred and twenty eminent scholars. The
scope of their labors, according to the admonition traditionally
perpetuated by themselves, is thus expressed: _Be careful in judgment;
set up many scholars, and make a hedge about the law_. They followed
this behest by much study and careful consideration of all traditional
details in administration; by multiplying scribes and rabbis unto
themselves; and, as some of them interpreted the requirement of setting
up many scholars, by writing many books and tractates; moreover, they
made a fence or hedge about the law by adding numerous rules, which
prescribed with great exactness the officially established proprieties
for every occasion.

Scribes and rabbis were exalted to the highest rank in the estimation of
the people, higher than that of the Levitical or priestly orders; and
rabbinical sayings were given precedence over the utterances of the
prophets, since the latter were regarded as but messengers or spokesmen,
whereas the living scholars were of themselves sources of wisdom and
authority. Such secular powers as Roman suzerainty permitted the Jews to
retain were vested in the hierarchy, whose members were able thus to
gather unto themselves practically all official and professional honors.
As a natural result of this condition, there was practically no
distinction between Jewish civil and ecclesiastical law, either as to
the code or its administration. Rabbinism comprized as an essential
element the doctrine of the equal authority of oral rabbinical tradition
with the written word of the law. The aggrandizement implied in the
application of the title "Rabbi" and the self-pride manifest in
welcoming such adulation were especially forbidden by the Lord, who
proclaimed Himself the one Master; and, as touching the interpretation
of the title held by some as "father", Jesus proclaimed but one Father
and He in heaven: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon
the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye
called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."[171]

The scribes, whether so named or designated by the more distinguishing
appellation, rabbis, were repeatedly denounced by Jesus, because of the
dead literalism of their teachings, and the absence of the spirit of
righteousness and virile morality therefrom; and in such denunciations
the Pharisees are often coupled with the scribes. The judgment of the
Christ upon them is sufficiently expressed by His withering imprecation:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"[172]

The origin of the Pharisees is not fixed by undisputed authority as to
either time or circumstance; though it is probable that the sect or
party had a beginning in connection with the return of the Jews from the
Babylonian captivity. New ideas and added conceptions of the meaning of
the law were promulgated by Jews who had imbibed of the spirit of
Babylon; and the resulting innovations were accepted by some and
rejected by others. The name "Pharisee" does not occur in the Old
Testament, nor in the Apocrypha, though it is probable that the
Assideans mentioned in the books of the Maccabees[173] were the original
Pharisees. By derivation the name expresses the thought of separatism;
the Pharisee, in the estimation of his class, was distinctively set
apart from the common people, to whom he considered himself as truly
superior as the Jews regarded themselves in contrast with other nations.
Pharisees and scribes were one in all essentials of profession, and
rabbinism was specifically their doctrine.

In the New Testament the Pharisees are often mentioned as in opposition
to the Sadducees; and such were the relations of the two parties that it
becomes a simpler matter to contrast one with the other than to consider
each separately. The Sadducees came into existence as a reactionary
organization during the second century B.C., in connection with an
insurgent movement against the Maccabean party. Their platform was that
of opposition to the ever-increasing mass of traditional lore, with
which the law was not merely being fenced or hedged about for safety,
but under which it was being buried. The Sadducees stood for the
sanctity of the law as written and preserved, while they rejected the
whole mass of rabbinical precept both as orally transmitted and as
collated and codified in the records of the scribes. The Pharisees
formed the more popular party; the Sadducees figured as the aristocratic
minority. At the time of Christ's birth the Pharisees existed as an
organized body numbering over six thousand men, with Jewish women very
generally on their side in sympathy and effort;[174] while the Sadducees
were so small a faction and of such limited power that, when they were
placed in official positions, they generally followed the policy of the
Pharisees as a matter of incumbent expediency. The Pharisees were the
Puritans of the time, unflinching in their demand for compliance with
the traditional rules as well as the original law of Moses. In this
connection note Paul's confession of faith and practise when arraigned
before Agrippa--"That after the most straitest sect of our religion I
lived a Pharisee."[175] The Sadducees prided themselves on strict
compliance with the law, as they construed it, irrespective of all
scribes or rabbis. The Sadducees stood for the temple and its prescribed
ordinances, the Pharisees for the synagog and its rabbinical teachings.
It is difficult to decide which were the more technical if we judge each
party by the standard of its own profession. By way of illustration: the
Sadducees held to the literal and full exaction of the Mosaic
penalty--an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth[176]--while the
Pharisees contended on the authority of rabbinical dictum, that the
wording was figurative, and that therefore the penalty could be met by a
fine in money or goods.

Pharisees and Sadducees differed on many important if not fundamental
matters of belief and practise, including the preexistence of spirits,
the reality of a future state involving reward and punishment, the
necessity for individual self-denial, the immortality of the soul, and
the resurrection from the dead; in each of which the Pharisees stood for
the affirmative while the Sadducees denied.[177] Josephus avers--the
doctrine of the Sadducees is that the soul and body perish together; the
law is all that they are concerned to observe.[178] They were "a
skeptical school of aristocratic traditionalists; adhering only to the
Mosaic law."[179]

Among the many other sects and parties established on the ground of
religious or political differences, or both, are the Essenes, the
Nazarites, the Herodians and the Galileans. The Essenes were
characterized by professions of ultra-piety; they considered even the
strictness of Pharisaic profession as weak and insufficient; they
guarded membership in their order by severe exactions extending through
a first and a second novitiate; they were forbidden even to touch food
prepared by strangers; they practised strict temperance and rigid
self-denial, indulged in hard labor--preferably that of agriculture, and
were forbidden to trade as merchants, to take part in war, or to own or
employ slaves.[180] Nazarites are not named in the New Testament, though
of specific record in the earlier scriptures;[181] and from sources
other than scriptural we learn of their existence at and after the time
of Christ. The Nazarite was one of either sex who was bound to
abstinence and sacrifice by a voluntary vow for special service to God;
the period of the vow might be limited or for life. While the Essenes
cultivated an ascetic brotherhood, the Nazarites were devoted to
solitary discipline.

The Herodians constituted a politico-religious party who favored the
plans of the Herods under the professed belief that through that dynasty
alone could the status of the Jewish people be maintained and a
reestablishment of the nation be secured. We find mention of the
Herodians laying aside their partisan antipathies and acting in concert
with the Pharisees in the effort to convict the Lord Jesus and bring Him
to death.[182] The Galileans or people of Galilee were distinguished
from their fellow Israelites of Judea by greater simplicity and less
ostentatious devotion in matters pertaining to the law. They were
opposed to innovations, yet were generally more liberal or less bigoted
than some of the professedly devout Judeans. They were prominent as able
defenders in the wars of the people, and won for themselves a reputation
for bravery and patriotism. They are mentioned in connection with
certain tragical occurrences during our Lord's lifetime.[183]

The authority of the priesthood was outwardly acknowledged by the Jews
at the time of Christ; and the appointed order of service for priest and
Levite was duly observed. During the reign of David, the descendants of
Aaron, who were the hereditary priests in Israel, had been divided into
twenty-four courses,[184] and to each course the labors of the sanctuary
were alloted in turn. Representatives of but four of these courses
returned from the captivity, but from these the orders were
reconstructed on the original plan. In the days of Herod the Great the
temple ceremonies were conducted with great display and outward
elaborateness, as an essential matter of consistency with the splendor
of the structure, which surpassed in magnificence all earlier
sanctuaries.[185] Priests and Levites, therefore, were in demand for
continuous service, though the individuals were changed at short
intervals according to the established system. In the regard of the
people the priests were inferior to the rabbis, and the scholarly
attainments of a scribe transcended in honor that pertaining to
ordination in the priesthood. The religion of the time was a matter of
ceremony and formality, of ritual and performance; it had lost the very
spirit of worship, and the true conception of the relationship between
Israel and Israel's God was but a dream of the past.

Such in brief were the principal features of the world's condition, and
particularly as concerns the Jewish people, when Jesus the Christ was
born in the meridian of time.


NOTES TO CHAPTER 6.

1. The Sanhedrin.--This, the chief court or high council of the Jews,
derives its name from the Greek _sunedrion_, signifying "a council." In
English it is sometimes though inaccurately, written "Sanhedrim." The
Talmud traces the origin of this body to the calling of the seventy
elders whom Moses associated with himself, making seventy-one in all, to
administer as judges in Israel (Numb. 11:16, 17). The Sanhedrin in the
time of Christ, as also long before, comprized seventy-one members,
including the high-priest who presided in the assembly. It appears to
have been known in its earlier period as the Senate, and was
occasionally so designated even after Christ's death (Josephus,
Antiquities xii, 3:3; compare Acts 5:21); the name "Sanhedrin" came into
general use during the reign of Herod the Great; but the term is not of
Biblical usage; its equivalent in the New Testament is "council" (Matt.
5:22; 10:17; 26:59) though it must be remembered that the same term is
applied to courts of lesser jurisdiction than that of the Sanhedrin, and
to local tribunals. (Matt 5:22; 10:17; 26:59; Mark 13:9; see also Acts
25:12.)

The following, from the _Standard Bible Dictionary_, is instructive:
"Those qualified to be members were in general of the priestly house and
especially of the Sadducean nobility. But from the days of Queen
Alexandra (69-68 B.C.) onward, there were with these chief priests also
many Pharisees in it under the name of scribes and elders. These three
classes are found combined in Matt. 27:41; Mark 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1.
How such members were appointed is not entirely clear. The aristocratic
character of the body and the history of its origin forbid the belief
that it was by election. Its nucleus probably consisted of the members
of certain ancient families, to which, however, from time to time others
were added by the secular rulers. The presiding officer was the high
priest, who at first exercized in it more than the authority of a
member, claiming a voice equal to that of the rest of the body. But
after the reduction of the high priesthood from a hereditary office to
one bestowed by the political ruler according to his pleasure, and the
frequent changes in the office introduced by the new system, the high
priest naturally lost his prestige. Instead of holding in his hands the
'government of the nation,' he came to be but one of many to share this
power; those who had served as high priests being still in esteem among
their nation, and having lost their office not for any reason that could
be considered valid by the religious sense of the community, exerted a
large influence over the decisions of the assembly. In the New Testament
they are regarded as the rulers (Matt. 26:59; 27:41; Acts 4:5, 8; Luke
23:13, 35; John 7:26), and Josephus' testimony supports this view. The
functions of the Sanhedrin were religious and moral, and also political.
In the latter capacity they further exercized administrative as well as
judicial functions. As a religious tribunal, the Sanhedrin wielded a
potent influence over the whole of the Jewish world (Acts 9:2); but as a
court of justice, after the division of the country upon the death of
Herod, its jurisdiction was limited to Judea. Here, however, its power
was absolute even to the passing of sentence of death (Josephus, Ant.
xiv, 9:3, 4; Matt. 26:3; Acts 4:5; 6:12; 22:30), although it had no
authority to carry the sentence into execution except as approved and
ordered by the representative of the Roman government. The law by which
the Sanhedrin governed was naturally the Jewish, and in the execution of
it this tribunal had a police of its own, and made arrests at its
discretion (Matt 26:47).... While the general authority of the Sanhedrin
extended over the whole of Judea, the towns in the country had local
councils of their own (Matt. 5:22; 10:17; Mark 13:9; Josephus, B. J. ii,
14:1), for the administration of local affairs. These were constituted
of elders (Luke 7:3), at least seven in number, (Josephus, Ant. iv,
8:14; B. J. ii, 20:5), and in some of the largest towns as many as
twenty-three. What the relation of these to the central council in
Jerusalem was does not appear clearly.... Some sort of mutual
recognition existed among them; for whenever the judges of the local
court could not agree it seems that they were in the habit of referring
their cases to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. (Josephus, Ant. iv, 8:14;
Mishna, Sanh. 11:2)."

2. Talmud.--"The body of Jewish civil and religious law (and discussion
directly or remotely relating thereto) not comprized in the Pentateuch,
commonly including the _Mishna_ and the _Gemara_, but sometimes limited
to the latter; written in Aramaic. It exists in two great collections,
the _Palestinian Talmud_, or _Talmud of the Land of Israel_, or _Talmud
of the West_, or, more popularly, _Jerusalem Talmud_, embodying the
discussions on the Mishna of the Palestinian doctors from the 2d to the
middle of the 5th century; and the _Babylonian_, embodying those of the
Jewish doctors in Babylonia, from about 190 to the 7th century."--_New
Standard Dict._ The Mishna comprizes the earlier portions of the Talmud;
the Gemara is made up of later writings and is largely an exposition of
the Mishna. An edition of the Babylonian Talmud alone (issued at Vienna
in 1682) comprized twenty-four tomes. (Geikie.)

3. Rabbis.--The title Rabbi is equivalent to our distinctive
appellations Doctor, Master, or Teacher. By derivation it means Master
or my Master, thus connoting dignity and rank associated with politeness
of address. A definite explanation of the term is given by John (1:38),
and the same meaning attaches by implication to its use as recorded by
Matthew (23:8). It was applied as a title of respect to Jesus on several
occasions (Matt. 23:7, 8; 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38,
49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title was of comparatively
recent usage in the time of Christ, as it appears to have first come
into general use during the reign of Herod the Great, though the earlier
teachers, of the class without the name of Rabbis, were generally
reverenced, and the title was carried back to them by later usage. Rab
was an inferior title and Rabban a superior one to Rabbi. Rabboni was
expressive of most profound respect, love and honor (see John 20:16). At
the time of our Lord's ministry the Rabbis were held in high esteem, and
rejoiced in the afflations of precedence and honor among men. They were
almost exclusively of the powerful Pharisaic party.

The following is from Geikie's _Life and Words of Christ_, vol. I, chap.
6: "If the most important figures in the society of Christ's day were
the Pharisees, it was because they were the Rabbis or teachers of the
Law. As such they received superstitious honor, which was, indeed, the
great motive, with many, to court the title or join the party. The
Rabbis were classed with Moses, the patriarchs, and the prophets, and
claimed equal reverence. Jacob and Joseph were both said to have been
Rabbis. The Targum of Jonathan substitutes Rabbis, or Scribes, for the
word 'prophets' where it occurs. Josephus speaks of the prophets of
Saul's day as Rabbis. In the Jerusalem Targum all the patriarchs are
learned Rabbis.... They were to be dearer to Israel than father or
mother--because parents avail only in this world [as was then taught]
but the Rabbi forever. They were set above kings, for is it not written
'Through me kings reign'? Their entrance into a house brought a
blessing; to live or to eat with them was the highest good fortune....
The Rabbis went even further than this in exalting their order. The
Mishna declares that it is a greater crime to speak anything to their
discredit, than to speak against the words of the Law.... Yet in form,
the Law received boundless honor. Every saying of the Rabbis had to be
based on some words of it, which were, however, explained in their own
way. The spirit of the times, the wild fanaticism of the people, and
their own bias, tended alike to make them set value only on ceremonies
and worthless externalisms, to the utter neglect of the spirit of the
sacred writings. Still it was held that the Law needed no confirmation,
while the words of the Rabbis did. So far as the Roman authority under
which they lived left them free, the Jews willingly put all power in the
hands of the Rabbis. They or their nominees filled every office, from
the highest in the priesthood to the lowest in the community. They were
the casuists, the teachers, the priests, the judges, the magistrates,
and the physicians of the nation.... The central and dominant
characteristic of the teaching of the Rabbis was the certain advent of a
great national Deliverer--the Messiah or Anointed of God or in the Greek
translation of the title, the Christ. In no other nation than the Jews
has such a conception ever taken such root or shown such vitality.... It
was agreed among the Rabbis that His birthplace must be Bethlehem, and
that He must rise from the tribe of Judah."

Individual rabbis gathered disciples about them, and, inevitably,
rivalry became manifest. Rabbinical schools and academies were
established, each depending for its popularity on the greatness of some
rabbi. The most famous of these institutions in the time of Herod I.
were the school of Hillel and that of his rival Shammai. Later,
tradition invested these with the title "the fathers of old." It appears
from the trifling matters over which the followers of these two
disagreed, that only by opposition could either maintain a
distinguishing status. Hillel is reputed as the grandfather of Gamaliel,
the rabbi and doctor of the law at whose feet Saul of Tarsus, afterward
Paul the apostle, received his early instruction (Acts 22:3). So far as
we have historic record of the views, principles or beliefs advocated by
the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, it appears that the former
stood for a greater degree of liberality and tolerance, while the later
emphasized a strict and possibly narrow interpretation of the law and
its associated traditions. The dependence of the rabbinical schools on
the authority of tradition is illustrated by an incident of record to
the effect that even the prestige of the great Hillel did not insure him
against uproar when once he spoke without citing precedent; only when he
added that so had his masters Abtalion and Shemajah spoken did the
tumult subside.

4. Sadducean Denial of the Resurrection.--As set forth in the text, the
Sadducees formed an association numerically small as compared with the
more popular and influential Pharisees. In the Gospels the Pharisees are
of frequent mention, and very commonly in connection with the scribes,
while the Sadducees are less frequently named. In the Acts of the
Apostles, the Sadducees appear frequently as opponents of the Church.
This condition was doubtless due to the prominence given the
resurrection from the dead among the themes of the apostolic preaching,
the Twelve continually bearing testimony to the actual resurrection of
Christ. Sadducean doctrine denied the actuality and possibility of a
bodily resurrection, the contention resting mainly on the ground that
Moses, who was regarded as the supreme mortal lawgiver in Israel, and
the chief mouthpiece of Jehovah, had written nothing concerning life
after death. The following is taken from Smith's _Dictionary of the
Bible_, article "Sadducees," as touching this matter: "The denial of
man's resurrection after death followed in the conception of the
Sadducees as a logical conclusion from their denial that Moses had
revealed to the Israelites the Oral Law. For on a point so momentous as
a second life beyond the grave, no religious party among the Jews would
have deemed themselves bound to accept any doctrine as an article of
faith, unless it had been proclaimed by Moses, their great legislator;
and it is certain that in the written Law of the Pentateuch there is a
total absence of any assertion by Moses of the resurrection of the dead.
This fact is presented to Christians in a striking manner by the
well-known words of the Pentateuch which are quoted by Christ in
argument with the Sadducees on this subject (Exo. 3:6, 16; Mark 12:26,
27; Matt. 22:31, 32; Luke 20:37). It cannot be doubted that in such a
case Christ would quote to His powerful adversaries the most cogent text
in the Law; and yet the text actually quoted does not do more than
suggest an inference on this great doctrine. It is true that passages in
other parts of the Old Testament express a belief in the resurrection
(Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:26; and in some of the Psalms); and it
may at first sight be a subject of surprize that the Sadducees were not
convinced by the authority of those passages. But although the Sadducees
regarded the books which contained these passages as sacred, it is more
than doubtful whether any of the Jews regarded them as sacred in
precisely the same sense as the written Law. To the Jews Moses was and
is a colossal form, preeminent in authority above all subsequent
prophets."

5. The Temple of Herod.--"Herod's purpose in the great undertaking [that
of restoring the temple, and of enlarging it on a plan of unprecedented
magnificence] was that of aggrandizing himself and the nation, rather
than the rendering of homage to Jehovah. His proposition to rebuild or
restore the temple on a scale of increased magnificence was regarded
with suspicion and received with disfavor by the Jews, who feared that
were the ancient edifice demolished, the arbitrary monarch might abandon
his plan and the people would be left without a temple. To allay these
fears the king proceeded to reconstruct and restore the old edifice,
part by part, directing the work so that at no time was the temple
service seriously interrupted. So little of the ancient structure was
allowed to stand, however, that the temple of Herod must be regarded as
a new creation. The work was begun about sixteen years before the birth
of Christ; and while the Holy House itself was practically completed
within a year and a half, this part of the labor having been performed
by a body of one thousand priests specially trained for the purpose, the
temple area was a scene of uninterrupted building operations down to the
year 63 A.D. We read that in the time of Christ's ministry the temple
had been forty-six years in building; and at that time it was
unfinished.

"The Biblical record gives us little information regarding this the last
and the greatest of ancient temples; for what we know concerning it we
are indebted, mainly to Josephus, with some corroborative testimony
found in the Talmud. In all essentials the Holy House, or Temple proper,
was similar to the two earlier houses of sanctuary, though externally
far more elaborate and imposing than either; but in the matter of
surrounding courts and associated buildings, the Temple of Herod
preeminently excelled.... Yet its beauty and grandeur lay in
architectural excellence rather than in the sanctity of its worship or
in the manifestation of the Divine Presence within its walls. Its ritual
and service were largely man-prescribed; for while the letter of the
Mosaic Law was professedly observed, the law had been supplemented and
in many features supplanted by rule and priestly prescription. The Jews
professed to consider it holy, and by them it was proclaimed as the
House of the Lord. Devoid though it was of the divine accompaniments of
earlier shrines accepted of God, and defiled as it was by priestly
arrogance and usurpation, as also by the selfish interest of traffic and
trade, it was nevertheless recognized even by our Lord the Christ as His
Father's House. (Matt. 21:12; compare Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.).... For
thirty or more years after the death of Christ, the Jews continued the
work of adding to and embellishing the temple buildings. The elaborate
design conceived and projected by Herod had been practically completed;
the temple was well-nigh finished, and, as soon afterward appeared, was
ready for destruction. Its fate had been definitely foretold by the
Savior Himself."--From the author's _House of the Lord_, pp. 54-61.

6. State of the World at the Time of the Savior's Birth.--At the
beginning of the Christian era, the Jews, in common with most other
nations, were subjects of the Roman empire. They were allowed a
considerable degree of liberty in maintaining their religious
observances and national customs generally, but their status was far
from that of a free and independent people. The period was one of
comparative peace--a time marked by fewer wars and less dissension than
the empire had known for many years. These conditions were favorable for
the mission of the Christ, and for the founding of His Church on earth.
The religious systems extant at the time of Christ's earthly ministry
may be classified in a general way as Jewish and Pagan, with a minor
system--the Samaritan--which was essentially a mixture of the other two.
The children of Israel alone proclaimed the existence of the true and
living God; they alone looked forward to the advent of the Messiah, whom
mistakenly they awaited as a prospective conqueror coming to crush the
enemies of their nation. All other nations, tongues, and peoples, bowed
to pagan deities, and their worship comprized nought but the sensual
rites of heathen idolatry. Paganism was a religion of form and ceremony,
based on polytheism--a belief in the existence of a multitude of gods,
which deities were subject to all the vices and passions of humanity,
while distinguished by immunity from death. Morality and virtue were
unknown as elements of heathen service; and the dominant idea in pagan
worship was that of propitiating the gods, in the hope of averting their
anger and purchasing their favor.--See the author's _The Great
Apostasy_, 1:2-4, and notes following the chapter cited.